I'd be tempted to go into more detail on the question you've extracted, and discuss each of the choices they offer, to give them an inkling of our substantial objections.
(I'll provide text in a future comment) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
All: no consideration of demand reduction in the questions or answers. No consideration of social issues (beyond the "reasonably priced" line, which pre-assumes an economic theory).
Question 2: beyond presupposing the goal of a single European grid (not that I say it is undesirable), the answers assume only management duties, no grid planning and construction.
Question 3: apart from again assuming the goal of an energy market, and single market, and that such a market would facilitate investment, it allows only for private or PPP investment, it doesn't give regulation (e.g. ordering companies to invest) as an option, and the question ignores the strong connection to other goals, e.g. the issue of getting investment in desirable fields (say, regenerative energy, or non-import-dependent energy).
Question 8: Why should diversification be a goal unto itself? What should be part of the diversity is more important, and the necessary diversity is a function of what are the main components.
Question 9: a "balancing" of certain goals (environmental protection, competitiveness and security of supply) is pre-assumed.
Question 11: too general: only asks about where to pour the money, not what to do with it, no question about possible policy tools (for example the feed-in-law vs. certificates debate).
Question 13: option "Incorporate climate change, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources into EU external relations" doesn't specify what policy is meant, yet citizens (and politicians and industry people) could be of very different minds regarding pro-active (export of technology as aid) and restrictive (import restrictions etc.) policies.
Question 14: both the desirability and feasibility of diversifying gas supply is pre-assumed, and supply of different kinds of energy are treated as similar.
Questions 16 and 17: beyond narrowness of choices, the questions fail to distinguish between internal and external policy at EU and member state levels.
Question 18: the readers' support for the goals of the Lisbon Process is pre-assumed, and the question makes it appear as if the goal of the energy strategy is merely to support the Lisbon Process, not a separate policy with goals that could differ. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
However, it's true that the conspicuous absence of other options is a point that could and no doubt should be made. It's allied to the point I made about the second option in the featured Q.1 -- there is another option there, but it goes against the pre-determined sense of the question, so it goes against logic to choose it.
